On Sun, 10 Nov 2002 22:27, Leo Simons wrote: > Sounds good. Is this also something to add to our coding standards?
Yep. > > cheers, > > - Leo > > On Sun, 2002-11-10 at 03:57, Peter Donald wrote: > > Hi, > > > > I found some code in Fortress (specifically ContextBuilder) that uses > > chaining. ie code can look something like > > > > ContextBuilder cb = ...; > > > > cb.doX().doY().doZ(); > > > > Because all the methods return this. In many cases this is considered a > > problem because it hides problems relating to; > > * synchronization > > * resource management > > etc. > > > > While those don't cover our situation I still consider it a bad practice > > because mutators/accessors should be sideeffect free IMO. WOuld anyone > > object if I made all those methods not return this? So the code would end > > up looking like > > > > ContextBuilder cb = ...; > > > > cb.doX(); > > cb.doY(); > > cb.doZ(); -- Cheers, Peter Donald *--------------------------------* | Every rule has an exception, | | except the rule of exceptions. | *--------------------------------* -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:avalon-dev-unsubscribe@;jakarta.apache.org> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:avalon-dev-help@;jakarta.apache.org>
